News Feed

October 28, 2016 - Employees pampered As Education Month draws to a close ... +++ October 28, 2016 - ‘Take big view of agriculture’ GEORGE TOWN, Cayman Islands– Sta ... +++ October 28, 2016 - NUPW reacts to Lowe’s comments on privatization The island’s largest public secto ... +++ October 28, 2016 - BUT warns of new militant approach The Barbados Union of Teachers (BUT ... +++ October 28, 2016 - Cameron expresses confidence in Windies women KINGSTON, Jamaica – West Indi ... +++ October 28, 2016 - Expect victimization! Opposition Leader Mia Mottley last ... +++

Reprimand and discharge for Pile

COURT TODAY BLOCKIn what he described as “a rare occasion,” High Court judge Olson Alleyne has reprimanded and discharged a man whom police found with two guns and ammunition at his home two years ago.

Charles Wendell Pile, of The Mount, St George, had pleaded guilty earlier this year to having two .32 revolvers and 16 bullets on September 27, 2013 when police executed a search warrant at his home.   

Justice Alleyne found that Pile had already lost “time on remand, his job and status”. Therefore, he opined, no useful purpose would be served by “exacting further any penalty” from the former Central Bank of Barbados security chief.

Additionally, the judge noted, Pile is already voluntarily performing community service.    

The sentence was handed down in the No. 4 Supreme Court this morning.

Principal Crown Counsel Elwood Watts, who presented the prosecution’s case, had outlined that when lawmen went to Pile’s residence, he directed them to a safe where they found the ammunition, for which he did not have a valid permit.

He had 66 bullets but, as the prosecutor explained, the law allows one to have a maximum of 50 bullets at any one time. Pile therefore had exceeded the lawful amount by 16.

According to the prosecutor, the security officer had also directed police to where he kept two revolvers which were not “currently licensed;” one belonged to himself for which he had not renewed the license since 2009; the other to his deceased aunt.

Handing down the sentence, Justice Alleyne stated that he considered Pile’s favourable presentencing report which “contains no negative features,” his remorse, and that he was considered as being at
a low-risk of reoffending.

Alleyne also referred to the testimony of character witnesses Mary Redman and Livingston Headley who, between them, described Pile as an honest, sincere, responsible, straightforward, no-nonsense man.

Further, Pile’s “national contribution to cycling”
was taken into consideration, along with the fact that
it was one of few occasions when “counsel on both sides of the adversarial divide” agreed that a guilty person be reprimanded and discharged.

In speaking to Pile, though, Justice Alleyne informed him that the offences were serious “and can attract a lengthy sentence” but even though that was so, “imprisonment is not automatic.”

Alleyne explained that he had a duty to “tier a sentence to ensure that the ends of justice are met
in each particular case.”

“In my view, you displayed ignorance in keeping the firearm which belonged to your aunt…and showed
a surprising lack of judgement in allowing your firearm
to go unlicensed for the length of time that you did.”

Part of the judge’s determination was influenced
by Pile’s “hitherto impeccable record” and there being no evidence that he had used the firearms or intended to do so “for nefarious purposes”.

Pile was represented by attorney-at-law Arthur Holder.

7 Responses to Reprimand and discharge for Pile

  1. Sue Donym October 29, 2015 at 7:34 am

    All that and no conviction.
    I expect he bought a lottery ticket.

  2. Frank Fowler
    Frank Fowler October 29, 2015 at 12:45 pm

    This is not common sense working here, this is connections and position working on his behalf. How many other young men are sitting in prison with the same charge and no consideration to income lost, family disruption, etcetera?

    • Tristan John
      Tristan John October 29, 2015 at 3:24 pm

      Those firearms where not illegally obtained. There is a big difference sir.

    • Olivia Jordan
      Olivia Jordan October 29, 2015 at 7:22 pm

      That’s right

  3. Tristan John
    Tristan John October 29, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    Yall saying that the courts using their head. But this is not your ordinary case. That man work in security. Thats the first thing. The second thing is that those firearms were not illegally obtained. Moreover, the mare fact he had em in a safe shows that he is a responsible gun holder. We need more people like him

  4. Frank Fowler
    Frank Fowler October 29, 2015 at 3:45 pm

    Yeah, 16 bullets that weren’t legal and two firearms that were unlicensed at the time. He got special treatment buddy, they’re a number of people serving time for unlicensed guns and bullets that weren’t used to harm anyone and they should have been given the same benefit of doubt as well.

  5. Alex 3 October 30, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    So would he have been allowed as chief of security at a bank to carry a side arm?
    How does his aunt get a gun?
    What is laughable is the 50 bullets were apparently legal but he was only charged with 16. Did he not have a permit for them or do you not need a permit for ammo in Barbados?
    This story has a lot of gaps.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *